I think Game custom indicates that it is fine.
----
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 6:32 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ACCEPTED: Though I still have some doubts about your formatting, as it's not
>> 100% certain that your e-mails are 'Purporting to be a Promotor's report' as
>> the rules indicate they should, especially when the e-mails seemed to be
>> predominantly Distributions on first glance.. I don't wanna inject a CFJ
>> into my life, but i request you note that the message are indeed Promotor
>> Reports to eliminate ambiguity in the future. I'll update this soon.
>>
>>
>> {{{
>>
>> The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
>> Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes. This
>> portion of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's
>> report is self-ratifying.
>>
>> }}}
>>
>> My question is, if the document doesn't purport to be a Promotor's report,
>> is it still the Promotor's report, and is it still self-ratifying?
>
> I think it does purport to be a Promotor's report, as a matter of game
> custom. This has been the way promotor's reports have been done since
> at least some time in 2014, and probably before that. I think this has
> been reasonably unambiguous to everyone before now. I'd like to avoid
> unnecessary changes. I've made only two formatting changes to these
> reports since I entered office. The first was to add "and removing it
> from the proposal pool" to the header boilerplate, and the second was
> to add the pender and pend fee data. I'll CFJ this if necessary, but
> I'd like to avoid it if we can reach a consensus. What do other's
> think?
>
> -Aris
